←back to thread

Ubuntu on Windows

(blog.dustinkirkland.com)
2049 points bpierre | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.379s | source
Show context
takeda ◴[] No.11392296[source]
Surprised I don't see anyone else mentioning this.

This looks to me like typical Microsoft strategy that they utilized a lot 25 years ago.

1. when not leader in given market, make your product fully compatible with competitor

2. start gaining momentum (e.g. why should I use Linux, when on Windows I can run both Linux and Windows applications)

3. once becoming leader break up compatibility

4. rinse and repeat

Happened with MS-DOS, Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, and others.

replies(23): >>11392494 #>>11393099 #>>11393276 #>>11393408 #>>11393449 #>>11393546 #>>11393585 #>>11394255 #>>11394392 #>>11395372 #>>11395436 #>>11395525 #>>11395526 #>>11395634 #>>11395700 #>>11395784 #>>11396366 #>>11396861 #>>11397608 #>>11397942 #>>11398467 #>>11398629 #>>11403675 #
jupiter2 ◴[] No.11393276[source]
Thank you for mentioning this! Really bothered by all the positive comments, especially coming from savvy HN users.

Gave this a long look and my main beef is that I couldn't possibly do anything on a Windows Machine in its' current state. Linux isn't just about running apps - there's a philosophy behind the system. Users first!

As long as Microsoft continues to disrespect the rights of users in regard to privacy, data-collection, data-sharing with unnamed sources, tracking, uncontrollable OS operations (updates, etc) - I will never go near it.

I find it especially offensive that ex-open source and ex-Linux users (working for Microsoft) have the audacity to come on here and try to sell this as a 'Linux on Windows' system when most of what makes Linux special (respect for the user) has been stripped away.

It's like giving a man who is dying of thirst sea water.

Most comments here appear to be positive and that's fine... whatever. To anyone reading this... please don't sell your souls and the future of software technology for ease of use and abusive business practices. /rant

replies(12): >>11393673 #>>11394336 #>>11394793 #>>11395513 #>>11395542 #>>11395567 #>>11395867 #>>11395890 #>>11395916 #>>11396065 #>>11397006 #>>11405934 #
fsloth ◴[] No.11395867[source]
People are different and have different constraints and optimization parameters. I'm not disagreeing with you as much as pointing out that not all people hold the same things as important as you do.

In my context as a software engineer or as a private individual I didn't find your argument convincing from the point of view that it would expose any specific problems that are of my concern. If I was responsible for confidential data my views might align more with yours.

"As long as Microsoft continues to disrespect the rights of users in regard to privacy, data-collection, data-sharing with unnamed sources..."

I'm already giving up most of my privacy in the general context when using an off-the-shelf cellphone (in the sense that I have no idea how much data leak my daily cell phone use causes and I'm fine with it since I have no time to implement a personal data safety plan).

If I wanted privacy I would stop using technology altogether. I just want things that a) work with b) minimal financial risk.

"when most of what makes Linux special (respect for the user) has been stripped away."

Sorry, for me it's the "Linux the technology stack", that make it special, not the "Linux the philosophy".

"please don't sell your souls and the future of software technology for ease of use"

For me personally, 'ease of use' is the single most important optimization parameter when choosing technology. Although, in my definition, this encompasses things not only directly related to daily use, but include license cost, security and data loss prevention. The most important thing I care very much for is retaining copy right to my own data.

Why 'ease of use'? Because the only thing that truly constrains me in this world, is time. As in, how long I have to live, and how much effort I need to reach my goals. When put in this context, I don't care of the philosophical implications of the way I solve problems and implement things - I just want them done.

I.e. if the product does what I want, I don't really care of the philosophy. Perhaps I have too much faith in market forces and jurisdiction prohibiting monopoly but I fail to see much personal benefit in an all encompassing "platform philosophy" as to me, technology platforms should focus on solving real life problems.

"please don't sell your souls"

I don't pour my soul into the technology platform I use. I pour my soul on the design itself - the implementation on the platform is just the implementation of the design that could very well live in an abstract turing machine. Although the implementation running in live hardware is much, much more fun (and exposes the bugs).

replies(1): >>11397817 #
jupiter2 ◴[] No.11397817[source]
It saddens me to hear you say this as a developer, a builder, an engineer of our technological future and infrastructure.

It falls on Developers - moreso than any other group - to be aware of the dangers the work they perform produces and for whom their work benefits. They must all be aware of the abuses of our basic rights and human dignity modern Private Enterprise engage in.

When these same Enterprises pull developers from a system (or systems) that value our individual rights to one that tramples all over them... it angers me. It begins to limit the Philosophically, user-empowering, alternatives we have. When developers rejoice over the actions of an abusive Enterprise, it disheartens me. It feels like the bigger picture is somehow being missed.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: 'Those who give up their freedoms for temporary ease of use deserve neither and will lose both.'

I do not mean this to sound harsh. You can both work within the current technological framework (as we all do) and, at the same time, rail against a future that runs counter to our core beliefs. It's ok to do both. It's ok to work within a Microsoft-produced framework and at the same time let them know that some of what they're doing is counter to your belief system as a private, law-abiding individual.

What we must not do is defend the Police State we're currently building. It runs counter to everything we hold dear as a democratic and free society. Counter to the best kind of future we can envision for ourselves and future generations.

The chasm between the 'haves'' and the 'have-nots'* is only getting wider. The very concept of a fair society where all men are created equal diminishes. Enterprise OSes produced by Microsoft, for example, have privacy-enabled features the common man does not have access to. The common man - you and I - are now constant targets whereas Corporations, those in Government, those in law enforcement and many others accustomed to living above the law continue live under a different set of rules. This is the emerging new standard.

China will soon get a special build of Windows 10 without telemetry, without "phoning home". I am certain that this special build will contain the same kind of malware and abusive spyware that benefits the Chinese Government over it's own citizens. So... we, possibly have, an American software company building and deploying tools for repressive regimes. Yet we have become so complacent, there isn't even a discussion about it. That's how bad things have gotten.

We shouldn't pretend that this philosophical disconnect is not the biggest change in development. It is essentially the only real difference between Operating Systems/Working Frameworks. As good people... I'm saying that we should never, ever defend it, accept it and be complacent about it.

replies(1): >>11399062 #
1. fsloth ◴[] No.11399062[source]
You make it sound like all developers were developing the equivalent of nuclear weapons.

The few hours of recreational computing I perform daily have no effect on how the world works. To imagine otherwise would be hubris verging on insanity.

The software I write at work cannot be used to invade anyone's privacy.

I see what your point is but totally fail to connect it to my personal daily reality.